Do you think, if oil did not exist in the Middle East. If Syria, did not have the last a russian naval port, outside of its own borders, if Syria was not allied with Iran, then this would be any issue? Atrocities go on all over the place. America is following along with the doctrine of the policy set out by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Gain control of these areas. Get rid of Nationalists who do not serve the interests of the western corporate masters. Get rid of Iran. Limit the power of Russia, and China. Keep America strong thru military force. Why do you think your military budget is bigger than the rest of the world combined?

Plain and simple. How would you feel if the tables were turned and Russia was considering attacking Colorado because of lax gun laws? Just an example.

So you didn't answer my question. I guess there is no solution but leaving Assad to his own devices. And once again, I know you're of the opinion that America is being controlled by the shadow of the Bush administration, and Obama's being paid off or perhaps threatened with violence to adhere to the policies of Donald Rumsfeld despite all logic. Despite Obama's speech the other night about how income inequality is one of our biggest domestic problems, and how the recession has crushed everyone but the wealthy, probably any piece of US foreign policy is, in your opinion, based around the interest of corporations. And I appreciate that you respect the sovreignty of Iran and Assad, and all the other rights-violating despots out there. I get that you're against the domination of the world by Western values, and would rather have dictators in power than have their countries engulfed in civil war. I know that despite any and all evidence that could ever be presented, you won't be able to wrap your head around the fact that someone involved in the Syrian military may have launched those missiles, and that despite the fact that Russia's clearly acting to protect its economic and political power and influence (FAR more than the United States, who is WAY more removed from the economic repercussions) by defending someone who gassed his own citizens, THAT's okay because they're the underdogs in terms of political influence on the world stage.

I get it man. But "plain and simple", Russia bombing Colorado because of lax gun laws is a twisted, distorted metaphor that doesn't make any sense at all. Nor is Russia wanting to bomb Mexico.

here's what indicates to me that you are locked into a mindset: Initially, your complaint was that the US was circumventing international law by threatening limited air-strikes in syria (under the impression that we were acting not really to punish the use of chemical weapons, but to protect some vague American interest, be it for oil or to instill American corporate will). You pondered again and again, why not wait for the UN report to come back, and then make up our minds?

It makes me sick, to think that the White House, is just so sure that it was Assad and are so dismissive of any other scenario. They are willing to push a button that could set off World War III. Even if no war breaks out, the world population is strongly against any action. Is America not a democracy? It makes me think that there are other goals at play here. Mainly, a bunch of rich men wanting to get richer.

Then, even as Obama "backed down", listened to the will of the people and went to seek congressional approval, which he was never going to get, you then latched onto the unequivocal fact that the Syrian rebels were responsible, despite the UN report not being in yet.

It will be interesting to see the UN report, but many articles claim it was the rebels.

Now, as the UN report comes in, you've deemed the facts it presents as pretty much meaningless in the face of your opinions and returned to your irrelevant argument that the New American Century think tank is responsible for all this. You say things like "Do you not think that if oil didn't exist in the middle east..." as though you're talking to a bunch of twelve-year-olds with no understanding of international politics or the history of American military action under Bush Sr. through Bush Jr. And even as America works with the international community to bring about a diplomatic solution, even though Obama was NEVER going to knock Assad from power with force in the first place, you back Russia, Iran, and Assad's unsubstantiated claims over the opinions of the majority of the international community simply because of your outdated opinion of American policy. You've searched out the unreliable sources to back your claims every step of the way.

I made peace long ago with the fact that politicians sometimes, frighteningly, have acted with the interest of corporations in mind rather than that of the people. In fact, I'm of the opinion that repealing Citizens United and taking money out of politics should be one of our top domestic priorities. But that does not mean that literally everything that happens involving America is founded in corporate greed. Military spending is too high. The wealthy are too wealthy and everyone else is too poor. But just try to be rational and look at the facts as they are presented. And this is somebody who marched and protested time and again against the Iraq war, every step of the way speaking. I back a UN resolution over a unilateral US involvement without question. But you can't ignore the fact that Russia has and will most likely continue to block appropriate measures, as I said, rendering the UN impotent. We'll see how well the disarmament goes.

I am not locked into any frame of mind. To me it sounds like you are defending, what I presume is your native country.

I know facts. That's it and I have an opinion of moral clarity, in my mind, of those facts. That's it.

I know you think America is defending the good of the world when it acts, but it is not. Ask pretty much most people in the world who are not American. Ask why Americans travelling Europe, backpacking tend to pose as Canadians. I do not want to start a war of words, I just know what I know and have an opinion on it.

Here is a better example. I just ask you to use your imagination for a second. Imagine Russia was the superpower. Imagine Mexico had oil. Imagine Russia wanted that oil. Imagine it was willing to bomb Mexico, your friend and ally. A country who supplies you with oil, so they can have greater influence on who gets it, how, and for how much.

This is the perspective of people in that region, and for he better part of the world. They feel, the American government is acting recklessly. With no real care for anything, but its interest.

That's all I am saying. It has nothing to do with Americans. It has to with the American Government, not to mention British, Saudi and Isreali, its major corporations and media.

SwampThing doesn't think America is defending the good of the world. He's just saying that he doesn't believe the ONLY reason for US Foreign Policy is corporate greed. You might view that as the opposite of what you're saying, but in fact there's a big grey area in between.

Also, one of the basic rules in international politics is that there are no eternal friends and foes. Russia will abandon its ""alliance"" with Syria if it considers the upsides smaller than the downsides. But there are a lot of factors which determine policy, never forget that the people making the decisions are an elite (even in the perfect representational democracy) and are susceptible to psychological factors for instance too, like the endowment effect or group think (Bay of Pigs Invasion anyone?). Some decisions will just be bad decisions or gambles made by incompetent fools.

Also, in your hypothesis you already assume the main driving factor is oil, while the main point of this discussion is that oil might be a factor, but it doesn't predict or declare everything, so there must be other factors.

Imagine a world where America wants Syria's oil, which even at our height of import from that country represented less than 1% of our global import of oil, and then in that imaginary world, I'll imagine Russia bombing Mexico. Your metaphor still doesn't apply to this scenario. Here's a metaphor that works:Mexico is run by a dictatorial regime that America is providing with money, aid, and arms, because it's one of our political allies. Oh and free speech, democratic elections, and the rights of homosexuals and others are cast aside in this hypothetical America as well, in this hypothetical America (russia) even homosexuality in written fiction is a punishable crime, not to mention protesting government policy. We are openly in support of iron-fisted despots. So then in Mexico, a civil war breaks out over THEIR lack of rights. Not all of the rebels are nice guys either, to be sure. In the midst of the heat of battle the Mexican military forces use WMD to kill over a thousand civilians, violating the Geneva convention in the largest single use of chemical weapons since 1988. A UN report comes in, not casting blame, which is not in its authority, but strongly suggesting based on the investigation of concrete facts by the impartial UN commission, that forces allied with the Mexican government are responsible for the attack. And hypothetical America says no no no, it was the rebels, we're going to block any UN security council resolution that comes along that might harm our friends in power. And then hypothetical Russia (which is a place where free speech, democratic elections, and the rights of the people are respected for the most part) is left with the option of...

Okay, so now that we've got a metaphor that works properly with the reality of the situation we're in, I can safely say that I still don't support Russia's backing of Assad. This has nothing, or at the most, very little to do with oil, I think you're saying that any involvement in any Middle Eastern country on America's behalf is clearly motivated by their desire to gobble oil. I haven't heard one single reasonable person claim that America is out to gain control of Syrian oil. In fact, we're working tirelessly to destroy our own national resources through fracking to end our dependency on unstable foreign oil reserves. The American people don't want another war, and I don't think the government is going to give us one.

As I said, you're generalizing every international incident involving America to reflect the insane foreign policy of GW Bush and the Iraq war. I want to know, in your opinion, if Assad's military definitely killed 1400 people with chemical weapons, violating international law, and their ally Russia prevents the mystical, peace-centric UN resolution to punish him, what is your REAL WORLD solution? And by the way, Russia IS a superpower, it's not some poor tiny backwater country.

I certainly do not think America always has, nor do I think it always will act unselfishly. The American government has gone against the will of its people and the will of the international community before. But Americans posing as Canadians abroad?! I mean, what are you talking about? (EDIT: I know what you're talking about, like I say 2 sentences from now, but it has nothing to do with Syria) I haven't heard people busting out that "the whole world views you as idiots, so sit down and shut up" stuff since like 2006. You don't need to lecture me about that, I lived through it. And here you are speaking for the perspective of the people in the Middle East, and the entire world.

I'll admit, I'd love to live up in Canada where you never have to worry about your government being entrenched in international politics, and can sit pretty in judgement of every single swivel of the American presidents chair. America has not even bombed Syria (we're currently brokering a disarmament deal if you forgot) and you're acting as though we're scheming to unseat a foreign power through military action in order for corporations in America to benefit.

Syria has not much oil. It is a key geopolitical country, due to its location. It is next to Iraq. Oil could feasibly be shipped directly to the Medaterainian if western coprorations had control of it. That's one major reason.

Control of Syria, would seriously hemerage what remaining strength Russia has in the region.

Control of Syria also diminishes Iran, and Hezbullah. So, in my opinion, Americas position that it may strike Syria strictly because of its UNPROVEN use of chemical weapons is foolish.

As far as America intervening for the good of man kind, here is a cable, known, but not officially documented until Wikileaks released it. It is a cable, in 1990, from the American Ambassador to Iraq, to Saddam Huisen, telling him, that America has "no position" on his plans to invade Kuwait. You see, Saddam asked America first. http://warisacrime.o...ht-gulf-war-one

ps. RE, Americans posing as Canadians. I have back packed Europe. i have seen it. met people who do. Do your self a favour, google "Americans Backpack" see what the top answers that google fills in before hitting enter.

Also, on your final point. I think this has turned into a general discussion on American foreign policy and why I am skeptical.

@Swamp Thing said:
As I said, you're generalizing every international incident involving America to reflect the insane foreign policy of GW Bush and the Iraq war. I want to know, in your opinion, if Assad's military definitely killed 1400 people with chemical weapons, violating international law, and their ally Russia prevents the mystical, peace-centric UN resolution to punish him, what is your REAL WORLD solution? And by the way, Russia IS a superpower, it's not some poor tiny backwater country.

Mangoes says:
For generalizing each American Military event, as being policy of George W, check what I wrote above, as it pertains to George H. So your theory is incorrect. Further, I could go back to The 50's and Mosaddegh. If you don't know what that is, google. I have written papers on it.

If Assad, called for the chemical weapons strike, even tho, such a move in theory, would have been his own suicide... I am not sure i have a real world solution. War is a fucked up thing. What I am against is the continued cycle of violence that begets violence. So, what I would not do, if I were America, is not fund the rebels. Nor would I train them as the Pentagon is now proposing, according to CNN.

I would keep my neck out of that part of the woods. I would develope clean renewable energies at home. I would trust that, in today's age of communication, that if I treat the world nicely it will treat me that way. I would stop acting like a jerk.

Oh, and Russia is not a super power. There is only one super power on the planet right now. America. China is rising and perhaps America is falling. Like I said before, the actions in the Middle East, by America, I believe lie close to the philosophy that using their military might to gain influence in the region, and diminish China and Russia's is in Americas interest. I fully disagree with this belief.

*Meanwhile, an Al Qaeda group has taken a town from the FSA. This town is 5km, from the border with Turkey. Oh joy.

This guy gives a very clear description of what is happening in the ground now in Syria. Since no western intervention took place, we now see infighting between the radicals and the rebels. His discussion starts at 1:00 and does a pretty solid breadth of what is happening in Syria and all the players involved plus their goals.